(EDITORIAL POLICY: This article may NOT be reproduced on any blog or website, but link-backs or SNIPPETS with FULL attribution to this site are welcome and appreciated.)

Written by Ng E-Jay
12 February 2015

I attended the Institute of Policy Studies seminar entitled “Assessing the Rationality of Political Online Space” held on 11 Feb 2015. In this seminar, IPS presented quantitative research done on online political blogs in an attempt to assess characteristics such as journalistic objectivity, level of emotions, and level of partisanship. Regression analysis was carried out to identity and evaluate correlations between these characteristics.

Some interesting observations emerged out of this quantitative study. Firstly, blogs that had consistently strong political content were largely written by anonymous authors. It was hypothesized by some at the conference that this could be due to the lingering climate of fear that the government has instituted in the local political culture. Numerous defamation suits against well known bloggers like Alex Au and against former political candidates like Vincent Wijeysingha come readily to mind as factors that contribute to this climate of fear.

Secondly, there appeared to be no correlation between whether a blog was political or apolitical, and the level of emotional outburst displayed by the blog author. People who blogged exclusively about LGBT issues, for example, could display much more emotion than people who blogged about failed government policies. It was therefore hypothesized by some that it is the level of personal interest and involvement in the issue at hand that determines displays of emotional outburst, rather than merely whether the topic is political or apolitical. This is, of course, a very logical if not obvious deduction.

There appeared to be no correlation between whether a blogger was anonymous and his/her level of objectivity. However, bloggers who have made their identities known tend to write in a calmer fashion, perhaps because he/she has a reputation to protect. The majority (over 70 percent) of blogs tend to discuss both sides of the argument rather than merely give a one-sided account of the issue. Political blogs in particular tended to be two-sided in their approach, but of course this by no means applies to all political blogs.

Whilst these are certainly interesting findings, I personally find the use of a purely quantitative approach to be highly limited. I could tell from the presentation that this quantitative approach, utilizing keyword analysis and numerical classification algorithms, tended to leave out nuances in meaning and intent. To put it bluntly, the purely quantitative analysis misses the forest for the trees. It even makes mountains out of molehills because it tends to exaggerate certain characteristic about blog postings simply based on keyword repetition and usage, without taking into account context and intent.

As such, I was highly skeptical that the quantitative approach alone could accurately gauge the mood of the online political blogosphere.

There was some level of evasiveness when a question was posed on whether these findings were being used to aid the government. Conference organizers deflected the question by stating that findings are open to all, but admitted that raw data is shared with the government.

My personal conclusion from the conference was that for all the effort used in the quantitative analysis, perhaps a better, less costly, and more accurate approach would simply be to dedicate a small group of political analysts to read the more popular political blogs, twitter feeds, and facebook replies everyday and assess their content using human judgment.

Of course, logistic regression, correlation analysis, and keyword identification algorithms tend to be highly respected by the community, but being a mathematician myself I know when to shake my head and smile, and this is one such instance.

(EDITORIAL POLICY: This article may NOT be reproduced on any blog or website, but link-backs or SNIPPETS with FULL attribution to this site are welcome and appreciated.)

Written by Ng E-Jay
23 January 2015

The Public Transport Council (PTC) said on Wednesday that it has decided on an overall fare increase of 2.8 per cent. However, it could not explain adequately why the fare increase has to take place despite a 60% plunge in the price of oil from its peak. Its reasons for the fare increase are dubious and illogical.

The PTC said that this year’s fare review exercise was based on 2013 figures, using changes in consumer price index, average wage and energy index from that year. Also, part of 2014’s fare increase was held back to prevent too big a hike. The line of reasoning therefore is that the part of the fare increase that was held back in 2014 is thus carried over into 2015.

However, this is illogical. Policy decisions must be made on updated data whenever possible. The fare increase that was held back in 2014 should not be carried over into 2015 because the price of oil has fallen drastically. It is senseless to implement the full increase originally meant for 2014 in the light of the new developments.

Even if fare review exercises are primarily conducted using past data rather than forecast data, it is illogical to ignore the latest statistics, because the current year’s profit experienced by the transport companies would be a function of the current price levels, and not previous price levels.

In rubber-stamping fare hikes proposed by transport companies, the PTC also claims that fares need to increase in order to cover operating costs. However, the public transport companies are making record profits every year. The net result is that the fare hikes have ensured that record profits continue, and not merely that costs have been covered.

As can be seen therefore, the PTC is looking after the continued prosperity of the public transport companies at the expense of commuters.

Transport minister Lui Tuck Yew said in a Facebook post on Wednesday evening that he was pleased to note that some 1.1 million commuters will be unaffected by the fare increment. However, he failed to mention that the rest of the 4 million people in Singapore would be affected. Perhaps he would like to elaborate why the rest of the 4 million people have to pay higher fares to ensure that transport companies continue to make higher and higher profits every year.

Our public transport companies are majority-owned by Temasek Holdings and GIC. These are the two entities that benefit from the record profits and millions of dollars of dividend payouts made by the transport companies. However, Temasek Holdings and GIC don’t return the accrued investment returns to Singaporeans. So essentially, Singaporeans are paying more and more each year to make our sovereign wealth funds rich, whilst in return for their generous contributions to state coffers, the CPF Board only returns to Singaporeans a very meager 2.5% interest rate on their CPF OA account.

Thus, the public is being made to feed state coffers and our sovereign wealth funds, but are given nothing more than random scraps in return.

]]>http://www.sgpolitics.net/?feed=rss2&p=89682Not credible for minister to say I plotted against Chiam, says Cheehttp://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=8965
http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=8965#commentsTue, 20 Jan 2015 22:04:41 +0000http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=8965WHENEVER the elections draw near, the People’s Action Party (PAP) never fails to resurrect Mr Chiam See Tong’s departure from the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and run the story that I had ousted him and usurped his post.

Predictably, the PAP has done it again, this time through Minister for Social and Family Development Chan Chun Sing’s letter (“Chee sacrifices S’pore to win points overseas: Chan Chun Sing”; last Friday), saying that: “Dr Chee plotted against Mr Chiam and pushed him out of the party he had founded.”

I would like to set the record straight.

Mr Chiam resigned as secretary-general of the SDP. No one kicked him out. In fact, after he resigned, a few central executive committee (CEC) members and I visited him on a few occasions over a month to persuade him to come back.

Court documents show that Mr Chiam’s relationship with his CEC colleagues was already strained prior to my joining the SDP. Mr Ashleigh Seow, then a CEC member, testified in court: “Most people have had a difficult time with (Mr Chiam) at one time or another.”

But even when the CEC took the decision to expel Mr Chiam over his open criticism of the party at an event organised by the Singapore Press Club in 1993, we still wanted to reconcile with him.

A few members of the CEC visited Mr Chiam, faxed him a letter requesting a meeting, and telephoned him several times to see if there was any chance of reconciliation before his expulsion was announced.

Tellingly, Justice Warren Khoo, who presided over the trial, acknowledged that he could find no bias or malicious behaviour on the part of the CEC in taking the action against Mr Chiam.

Given the above, is it credible for Mr Chan to say that I “plotted against Mr Chiam and pushed him out of the party he had founded”?

The PAP has spared no effort to paint me as the villain in this episode and to get Singaporeans to turn against me. I write this letter not to criticise Mr Chiam but only to set the record straight and to head off the PAP if it resurrects the issue close to elections.

The SDP has repeatedly sought goodwill with Mr Chiam through the years and we will continue to do so.

The SDP has moved on and we have grown. We have been a constructive party, drawing up alternative policies for Singapore. We want to focus on the real issues that Singaporeans are interested in, such as the cost of living, Central Provident Fund, housing, population and health care.

We hope that, for the sake of our nation and her people, the PAP will do the same.

Chee Soon Juan (Dr)

Secretary-General

Singapore Democratic Party

– See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-letters/story/not-credible-minister-say-i-plotted-against-chiam-says-chee-20150120#sthash.NUKOXNHl.dpuf

The latter had written two articles “Without Freedom There is No Free Trade” and “Free the Singapore Media and Let the People Go” talking basically about income inequality, media freedom creativity and the need for improvement in the system.

There is rarely open political debate in Singapore involving the ruling party, and certainly, a debate even between a powerful ex-Major General turned Minister and what Chan Chun Sing calls a politically-failed nobody must surely deserve some attention.

I started reading the rebuttal with great expectations because I expected a scholar and a touted future Prime Minister to demolish the “failure” with very strong and logical arguments. But I was disappointed. What I read was not a response to the issues raised by Dr Chee but a personal attack on him, raking up his past and labelling him with derisory terms.

Phyllis Schlafly, an American constitutional lawyer, has this to say about ad hominem personal attacks: That shoddy tactic is a loser before any audience.

Confucius also warned of the dangers of being ungentlemanly. In the Analects of Confucius under the segment of The Great Learning, there is a famous saying,十目所视，十手所指, 其严乎 (Ten Eyes Watching, Ten Hands Pointing, How Terrifying!) This is a famous saying from Zengzi, a disciple of Confucius. It simply tells you how you behave is watched by 10 pairs of eyes and the fingers pointing at you will come from 10 pairs of hands. Quite unnerving! In the age of the internet and particularly when you are a politician, you will be watched by hundreds or even thousands of eyes and criticized by the same number hands. Zengzi’s advice is that a person should be sincere, should not to be overbearing, and should act without airs.

Mencius, another disciple of Confucius, also advised. 言人之不善，当如后患何？This means that when you speak ill of others, you had better consider how things will backfire.

No wonder the internet is flooded with criticisms against those who strike a low blow!

The PAP has always been a supporter of a Confucian-style of government. Perhaps the Analects should be made compulsory reading for its potential acolytes.

There is a story from the History of the Han Dynasty that people aspiring to positions of power should take note. During the reign of Emperor Han Wudi, an official, Han Anguo, was sent to jail for some offence. The jailor, Tian Jian, frequently insulted him. Han told him, “Who can say for certain that dying ashes would not burn again.” Tian retorted, “If that happens, I’ll piss and put it out again.”

A few years later, Han was released and became an official again. For fear of his safety, Tian fled. Han ordered that he return or his whole family would be executed. Tian returned and apologized to Han.

(EDITORIAL POLICY: This article may NOT be reproduced on any blog or website, but link-backs or SNIPPETS with FULL attribution to this site are welcome and appreciated.)

Written by Ng E-Jay
06 January 2015

Sometimes in life, we can do nothing but wait. And wait. And wait. We see the two blue ticks next to the WhatsApp message that we just sent out, and we wonder why the other party has not responded. Is she busy? Is she feeling ambivalent? What’s occupying her? What’s taking her so long? Does she have reservations about how things are going?

As Singaporeans, we have sent a clear message to the PAP about the change we want to see in Singapore. The PAP has received and read our message, and there are two blue ticks. Those two blue ticks keep politically aware and concerned Singaporeans up at night, wondering how our aged will retire with dignity, worried about the cost of living and the price of public housing, wondering when our government will open up and cease its authoritarian ways.

The majority of the actions that the PAP government has taken since GE 2011 have indicated they have not paid any heed to the message we sent. It’s true that they have slowed the influx of foreign labour and given Singaporeans a little breathing space. But the stress on society remains. Singaporeans are still facing fierce and unfair competition for jobs, and wages at the lower end of the income spectrum remain depressed despite the introduction of a minimum wage in a couple of key sectors.

We are still being overwhelmed by the influx of foreigners taking away our white collar jobs, by the cost of living that never seems to moderate even with the recent trend of global disinflation. Our young couples still struggle with expensive public housing, long waits for BTO projects to be completed, and are saddled with lengthy mortgages that will prevent them from accumulating funds for retirement. Our public transport breakdowns are still as frequent as ever, even though sleeper rail replacements and other infrastructure improvements are on-going.

It seems the changes have been half-hearted and insincere.

We have foreigner bosses discriminating against Singaporeans in the workplace. We have foreigners openly cursing Singaporeans and wishing us ill. What does the government do? A slap on the wrist perhaps, or even coming outright to defend them as in the case of Tan Tock Seng Hospital in the most recent episode involving the alleged outburst by one of their nurses against Singaporeans and against a particular religion. This is not the kind of society that any Singaporean wants. This is not the kind of xenophobia and racial or religious intolerance that we Singaporeans want in our country.

Our government has not listened to our calls for change. They have not responded to our concerns. There are two blue ticks next to the message we’ve sent, but they’ve gone unanswered so far. Fortunately for Singaporeans, while I have to wait out my own two blue ticks, Singaporeans know their chance to make another statement will come within the next one year or so, at the ballot box. And at the ballot box, instead of two blue ticks, we will be making our statement loud and clear with a giant X in the correct box.

In 1848, Karl Marx stirred the world when he wrote, “A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.

“Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?”

This was to become the preamble to the famous publication known as The Communist Manifesto.

Indeed, the spectre did cause a lot of paranoia, of which the most celebrated of its victims was Joseph McCarthy, a US senator, who in 1950 started a witch-hunt for the adherents of Communism.

People were accused of subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence, and threats posed by persons with leftist ideology were greatly exaggerated. People were sacked from their jobs and some were imprisoned.

With the end of the Cold War and the advent of globalisation, the spectre of communism has faded and it is now perfectly acceptable to do business with Communist countries and co-exist with them.

Up to end of 1959, Malaya and to some extend, colonial Singapore, also had their share of problems with the Malayan Communist Party. Though the MCP has now surrendered and laid down their arms and disbanded, there are still the periodic reminders of the threat of communism in Singapore and the harping ad nauseum of how lucky Singapore had been to be saved by the PAP from the clutches of the communists.

Over the last few days, there have been a lot of articles in the press to support the PAP’s position that it had been right to suppress its opponents in the early sixties because it was beyond the shadow of doubt that they were communists. In its view, Lim Chin Siong was clearly a communist even though he had publicly declared he was not and evidence from the Colonial Office corroborated this. The British intelligence believed he was not acting for the MCP or taking instructions from them. Chin Peng had confirmed he was not under their influence.

Dr Poh Soo Kai was under high suspicion simply because as a doctor he had treated a communist.

Dr Lim Hock Siew was deemed guilty too. He said, “My detention is completely unjustifiable and I will not lift a single finger to help Lee Kuan Yew to justify the unjustifiable.” To him it was like ordering him to renounce violence against his wife when in fact he had not even beaten her.

It appears the spectre of the past is still haunting the PAP government today even though economic progress and globalisation have exorcised the ghosts of the red menace all over the globe.

It is even deemed necessary to erect a marker to commemorate the struggle against “the violence and intimidation of the Communist Party of Malaya” so as to remind future generations of the life-and-death battle that had taken place. It was unveiled in the Esplanade Park on Dec 8th 2014.

Who do the markers glorify, I wonder? The major combatants were the Malayan Communist Party, the Malayan Armed Forces and the British Armed Forces. Rightly so, the Malaysian and the British Armed Forces deserved to be heroes for containing and eventually defeating the MCP. Much as the PAP would like Singaporeans to see it as Singapore’s saviour for defeating the communists, records had not shown that it had really done battle with the MCP. There was no record of any armed uprising in Singapore. So how did the PAP come to fight a deadly battle with the communists?

The PAP was formed by the surge of nationalism prevalent at that time. There was a sudden political awareness and feeling of duty by Singaporeans to look after our own affairs and get rid of colonialism. Many people, most without ideological leanings, some socialists of all shades, a small number of communists and even a number of elites decided to come together and launch a new left-wing political party. The Chinese-educated formed the bulk of the party and the English-educated provided the leadership. Many uneducated workers were the nuts and bolts.

The Sunday Times in a sarcastic editorial on 28th November 1954 on the launch said, “There was a fair crowd at the Victoria Memorial Hall, though fewer than at a performance of an absurd film about a Persian Princess and a shifty barber…at which place a more intelligent dialogue could be heard I am unable to say.”

The Straits Times thought the party was a non-starter but they were wrong. By 1959 the PAP had become a major player, thanks to the conviction of the ordinary people. As expected of a new party made up of diverse opinions, it did not take long for an internal squabble to start.

In June 1961, there was a major rift amongst comrades over the question of merger. One month later in a vote of confidence in the Legislative Assembly, 13 of the PAP members abstained from supporting the government. These rebels were expelled from the party the next day.

In less than a month, the defectors and their supporters announced the formation of the Barisan Sosialis. In terms of intellectual muscle, the BS compared favourably to the PAP. In area of organisation and grassroots strength, the BS was far superior.

The only way to beat the BS was to use the communist bogeyman. It did not take much difficulty to brand the new party as a pro-communist party as most of these defectors, though not necessarily adherents of MCP, belonged to the left of the PAP. The only way to defeat the BS was to use force. Thus on 2nd February 1963, Operation Coldstore was launched and over 100 accused of being anti-national and being communists were arrested in an island-wide swoop.

In one stroke, the Barisan, which was seen as likely to win the coming General Election, was decapitated and rendered impotent. What was essentially an internal split within the party became framed as a fight against the barbarians at the gate.

The act of putting a label and arresting people without trial under the ISA subsequently became a convenient tool to deal with troublesome people. So the threat of Communism continued to be a reason to arrest the labelled Euro-communists and Marxist conspirators. The incarceration of “stupid novices” and “do-gooders” was made in the name of national security. Those “stupid novices” were planning to overthrow the government by force by cyclostyling pamphlets and staging a play about a Filipino maid.

I cannot imagine people like Francis Khoo and Vincent Cheng being communists, but the erected marker will remind future Singaporeans they were once a threat to Singapore. An enemy of the State in perpetuity? Even Khoo’s widow, a renown orthopaedic surgeon and humanitarian, Dr Ang Swee Chai, cannot even till today enter her own country unless she applies for and is granted a special pass.

Markers are important to a country because they help people to remember a significant part of the past. However, it is going to be of no historical or cultural value if it does not give a complete picture and the story is only told from one side.

I would have thought the 50th anniversary of Singapore would be a good time for reconciliation. Instead it could not make things any worse by equating Tan Pin Pin’s To Singapore, With Love with some Jihadist glorification and labelling historian PJ Thum’s work as revisionist history.

(EDITORIAL POLICY: This article may NOT be reproduced on any blog or website, but link-backs or SNIPPETS with FULL attribution to this site are welcome and appreciated.)

Written by Ng E-Jay
21 November 2014

Our transport companies have become a huge political liability for the PAP. Their frequent missteps, the regularly-occurring disruption of train services, and the incessant fare hikes have angered Singaporeans. Singaporeans do not just blame the transport companies for under-performing and under-delivering. They also blame the PAP government for allowing this state of affairs to develop.

Three days ago, the Public Transport Council (PTC) announced that the annual fare review exercise has started. SMRT promptly responded by saying: “We seek a better alignment of fares and operating costs, and will be submitting our application for a fare review in the coming weeks.”

Most people have reacted to these announcements with utmost cynicism. In Singapore, hardly anyone has any illusions that the term “fare review” is equivalent to “fare hike”. Since when has a fare review translated into lower fares? Many have also correctly pointed out that since fuel prices have declined sharply in recent months, commuters deserve a reduction in fares. However the rhetoric coming from transport companies and from the PTC suggest that no such concession is on the cards.

The persistent increase in public transport fares even whilst the companies themselves are making a good profit has drawn widespread anger and criticism. To add salt to the wound, Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew said that fares will remain affordable for Singaporeans — a statement many have come to regard as incongruous with what’s really happening.

This state of affairs will translate into declining support for the PAP. The way our public transport companies have tried to extract every ounce of blood they can from commuters, with the full complicity of the PTC which functions as nothing more than a rubber stamp, have led Singaporeans to pin the blame on the government itself, and by extension the ruling party.

The privatization of the transport companies has allowed them free reign to act in their own selfish corporate interests at the expense of the welfare of commuters.

And instead of privatization leading to increased competition which should theoretically lead to better service standards, our public transport companies have collectively sunk to the bottom, with no real competition taking place and no real effort to fulfil their public responsibilities.

The corporatist model created by the PAP has failed. It has led to greed, but not to better services for the public. Unless the PAP acts decisively against our public transport companies and forces them to overhaul their business structures, the PAP should be made to pay a very heavy political price.

(EDITORIAL POLICY: This article may NOT be reproduced on any blog or website, but link-backs or SNIPPETS with FULL attribution to this site are welcome and appreciated.)

Written by Ng E-Jay
05 November 2014

To this day, there continues to be discrimination against single unwed mothers in Singapore. This discrimination is unwarranted and unfair. Single mothers are women who have taken the responsibility of raising a child on their own when they could have easily abandoned the child at a foster home. They do not deserve to be punished simply because the government wants to promote the ideal of a two-parent family as the only acceptable standard.

The Minister for Social and Family Development Chan Chun Sing said in Parliament that whilst children get the same benefits whether or not their mothers are married, “benefits that are intended to support marriages and births within the context of families are only given to married mothers“.

This kind of discrimination is symptomatic of a government that is stuck in the Stone Age. It is symptomatic of a government that does not hesitate in punishing those who do not conform to the government’s idea of acceptable social practices, even though unwed mothers who raise children on their own are in fact the bravest souls on Earth.

The benefits that married mothers enjoy but single moms don’t include:

How many women out there choose to be single moms out of whim or simply out of a desire to be non-conformist or rebellious?

The fact is that single mothers who raise children on their own shoulder a far greater burden than married mothers, because they lack the care and financial support a father can provide. Yet these women persevere in their parenting duties out of love for their child. It is wrong for the government to punish that kind of love and responsibility.

A blanket discrimination against single unwed mothers fails to take into consideration the possible factors why single moms exist. Some may have been forced to be single moms because of the tragic death of a loved one. Others might have chosen to do so because of a desire to protect their kids from a violent partner. How can the government, in good conscience, discriminate against such mothers? In fact, such mothers should be helped even more because of the sacrifice they are making in protecting their young.

How can the government continue to discriminate against responsible parents who make tremendous sacrifices just to pander to their narrow-minded ideals of family and parenting?

The existence of single moms do not in any way threaten the status of married moms. It is time to stop this nonsensical and highly unjust discrimination.

]]>http://www.sgpolitics.net/?feed=rss2&p=89431Incorrect of SAF to participate in military exercises with Chinahttp://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=8937
http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=8937#commentsSun, 02 Nov 2014 17:56:08 +0000http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=8937

(EDITORIAL POLICY: This article may NOT be reproduced on any blog or website, but link-backs or SNIPPETS with FULL attribution to this site are welcome and appreciated.)

Written by Ng E-Jay
03 November 2014

I am saddened that the Singapore Armed Forces, at the behest of the PAP government, is participating in a bilateral military exercise with China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The move clearly shows that the Singapore government is turning a blind eye to the territorial aggression that China has exhibited toward the East Asian seas in recent years.

The joint military exercises, entitled Cooperation 2014, which begins on Sunday and is being held in Nanjing, will end on Nov 9. About 70 personnel each from the SAF and the PLA are taking part in the eight-day exercise which will include professional seminars and a company-level conventional infantry exercise featuring a live-firing demonstration.

And yet, just last month in October, Beijing has continued pressing claims to ownership of more than 80 percent of the South China Sea, asserting itself over waters enclosed by its so-called “nine-dash line” (see picture on the left). The line is not recognized at all by the United Nations, and has absolutely no standing whatsoever in the international community.

China’s territorial assertiveness which it backs by its military power has caused fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst residents of the region.

The purpose of China’s territorial aggressiveness is to gain control of the major shipping and trading routes in East Asia and to become a regional hegemon. However its confrontational methods and the use of its military to project power over disputed territories are not consistent with building a peaceful and harmonious East Asian region.

By participating in with the PLA in a military exercise in an effort to forge closer ties, Singapore is ignoring China’s military aggression in East Asia in recent years for the sake of selfish economic gain. I therefore strongly object to what my government is doing.

China’s recent military aggression in East Asia

China’s military aggression in East Asia and its territorial claims in the region have accelerated over the past two years.

Just before Thanksgiving in 2013, Beijing made a surprise announcement of an “air-defense identification zone,” claiming navigational control of the skies over most of the water that lies between China and Japan, including not only areas claimed by Japan but also areas claimed by South Korea.

In January 2014, a Chinese naval group patrolled the James Shoal, an area claimed by both Taiwan and Malaysia, where it held a highly publicized deck-top ceremony in which sailors trumpeted an “oath of determination” to safeguard China’s maritime interests.

In May 2014, China’s state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corporation moved its Haiyang Shiyou 981 oil platform to waters near the disputed Paracel Islands in South China Sea. Vietnam vociferously protested the move as an infringement of its sovereignty. It sent 29 ships to attempt to disrupt the rig’s placement and operations. The ships met resistance from Chinese ships escorting the rig, and Vietnam stated that its ships were repeatedly rammed and sprayed with water resulting in 6 people being injured. On May 26, a Vietnamese fishing boat sank near the oil rig after being rammed by a Chinese vessel.

Throughout the year, China has also employed less militaristic tactics to assert control in the Pacific, most notably by building artificial islands in the contested waters off the Spratly Islands. On these new islands and on other remote outcroppings, China has constructed bases and dwellings to house Chinese soldiers.

]]>http://www.sgpolitics.net/?feed=rss2&p=89370Ms Teo Soh Lung on the lack of support for civil activists from Singapore’s opposition partieshttp://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=8934
http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=8934#commentsFri, 31 Oct 2014 14:56:25 +0000http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=8934MS TEO SOH LUNG: In Hong Kong, opposition parties actively support the young protesters, giving them encouragement, assistance and advice. They are by their side, assisting them and speaking up for them. They go on television in support of the protesters. Ms Emily Lau even took the trouble to go to the UN to champion their cause and London to speak on Hard Talk. In Malaysia too, opposition parties were involved in mass demonstration organised by civil society. They stood with them when tear gas and water cannons were fired. They went to jail because they stood up against injustice.

But in Singapore, where are the opposition parties? Do they exist? Do they speak up when civil society is under attack.